If Facebook admits wrongdoing they will lose every lawsuit brought against them going forward, which means they will contest the charges instead of settling. The FTC doesn’t want that, because an actual court case means they might lose, which would be bad for the careers of everyone involved. They’d rather just take the guaranteed W by offering FB a palatable settlement.

This is a perfectly rationale terrible explanation - it absolutely makes sense, but there's a real problem if we allow decision making like this to be accepted at large. Some cases might be lost, but companies that violate our privacy should actually pay for it.

That's not a W, though. It's playing to a tie, then forfeiting the rest of the game. Naturally, I would love for this to go to trial. Even if the FTC lost, at least we'd know what the consumer privacy landscape in the US actually looks like.

The title of this post/story, should be "Facebook Expects to be Fined Not More Than $5B by FTC," because a $5B fine would be extremely not-painful; there would be zero deterrent effect from a fine of this size.

Taking a bribe shouldn't be the best outcome for all involved.

>What is point of letting them claim innocence?

It changes the evidentiary basis of future claims on related grounds. The admission opens them up to other legal risks outside of the current dispute.

Maybe European regulators want to slap them for the same fact pattern (same facts, different jurisdiction). Maybe a class action is put together (same facts, different plaintiffs). Maybe they have an HR suit for unlawful termination from one of their security guys claiming he was fired for disclosing a vulnerability (related facts).

Etc.

> It changes the evidentiary basis of future claims on related grounds

Well that's interesting...citation? I thought not admitting any wrongdoing meant that you didn't admit it, meaning that there'd be no lower bar for anything, related grounds or not.